Agnostic Bayesian Learning of Ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a method for producing ensembles of predictors based on holdout estimations of their generalization performances. This approach uses a prior directly on the performance of predictors taken from a finite set of candidates and attempts to infer which one is best. Using Bayesian infer-ence, we can thus obtain a posterior that repre-sents our uncertainty about that choice and con-struct a weighted ensemble of predictors accord-ingly. This approach has the advantage of not re-quiring that the predictors be probabilistic them-selves, can deal with arbitrary measures of per-formance and does not assume that the data was actually generated from any of the predictors in the ensemble. Since the problem of finding the best (as opposed to the true) predictor among a class is known as agnostic PAC-learning, we re-fer to our method as agnostic Bayesian learning. We also propose a method to address the case where the performance estimate is obtained from k-fold cross validation. While being efficient and easily adjustable to any loss function, our exper-iments confirm that the agnostic Bayes approach is state of the art compared to common baselines such as model selection based on k-fold cross-validation or a learned linear combination of pre-dictor outputs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".